﻿﻿Sperm is Cheap

Women are, civilizationally and socially, more valuable than men. One of the two problems with the Roosh piece (and the main problem with the Rollo quote) is that he mixes the personal and the impersonal. While in general a woman is more valuable than a man, that does not apply in every case. The value of particular individuals depends on the particular individuals. Thinking that this means that you are worth less than all women, is just as silly as the person who gets personally offended when told whites in generally have higher IQ and then tries to disprove you by pointing to (insert high achieving black here). saying women are more valuable does not imply that the childless, post-menopausal cat lady is more valuable than a father of eight. Applying systems-level thought inappropriately to the individual level is just stupid.

If the thought that women are more valuable than men makes you feel hopeless or forms pussy pedestalization in you, that is more an indictment of your psychological state than of my assertion.

The second thing Roosh gets wrong is his universalism. The darwinian struggle is largely relative. Sure, there are 7 billion people, but there are only 200 million white Americans or 7 million Swedes or 15 million Southern Baptists. If you start parsing down to smaller thedes the numbers get smaller. If you want your thede(s) to survive and thrive you need to have the numbers to hold your own in the struggle. So yes, reproduction is still important, unless you’re a rootless cosmopolitan lacking any thedish loyalties.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are valuable. A woman can reliably birth about one healthy child a year over a lifetime window of about 20 years. So at maximum output with no problems, she can’t make much more than 20 children.* A man can produce a healthy child a day over a 40 year window without much difficulty.

From a darwinian standpoint, men can risked, but women can not be. This is why we send men to war, to exploration, to business, to dangerous jobs, etc. Many will die, but the most fit will survive to create the new generation.

But this is also where masculine achievement comes from: great risks entail great rewards. This is why war heroes, leaders, explorers, great businessnessmen, inventors, culture creators, etc. are almost entirely men. Men risk death, dismemberment, poverty, wasted time, etc. to achieve. Those who fail suffer and/or die, those who succeed reap rewards and glory.

Men’s expandability is their civilizational strength. It’s in taking on risk that men achieve. By throwing expendable men at problems, the great ones can do great things for civilization and the less great can form bands to achieve great things.

****

* There are some recorded women with much higher numbers than this, but they mostly depend on an exceedingly rare number of multiple child births, but even those extremes pale in comparison to the male extremes.

26 comments

Men are expendable, women are perishable. When men complain that women are treated better, that people care more about women, they taken for granted what they have. How many women have achieved and excelled as much as the average man does? Women can never reach the heights men can. Women will never be truly free, as men can be.

Women envy men because when it comes to glory, they are always the bridesmaids, never the bride. A man can be satisfied helping a better man because he at least had the chance to be that better man. Women never get that, and have to stand by and watch, and helping out is the best they can do.

They play their role, but it was chosen for them, before they were born. At the moment of conception, they have limits placed on them. Nothing they can do will change it, and attempts usually makes their situation worse.

Not for me. No, I will take the choice of death or glory over safety, while knowing that even if I chose safety, it was always mine to choose.

Stop it with the DNA imperative, Tradcon BS. Women (wombs) are a dime a dozen in the 21st century. There is absolutely no logical, reasoned, sane explanation for a man to take a bullet for a woman in the 21st century. I dare you to prove me wrong!

Women have safety and ease. Men have the potential for glory but also the potential to be the bottom of the heap as a homeless man dying in his own urine or other ignoble lives far worse than that of most women.

I actually agree with your point from the original argument. What would be the point of the manosphere’s chasing after women if it were not true. I disagree with women in the police and military sphere. I was lucky to spend my time in Iraq on a camp with very few women. It cemented my view on this.

Why do PUAs “chase” women? PUAs don’t spend much time chasing women. Once PUAs
have several plates spinning, their time spent on women is minimal.

Why do betas need/want women? Betas are less valuable than women, so they must spend a lot of resources chasing women. Betas do better if they learn Game and become alphas–betas do better if they improve themselves and make themselves more valuable.

There’s a famous quote to the effect that “Men do, women are” (i.e. Men must actively prove their worth, but a woman’s worth is inherent) that supports your point. Obviously this was balanced by the fact that a woman’s reproductive value is only for a small window of her life, and after that she’s not much good to anyone unless she’s well integrated in a family and community.

Clearly our current arrangements are a mess in lots of ways, but the truth you describe was well understood in more civilized times; even the Bible commands men to make allowances for women as the weaker sex, while commanding women to submit to their men as the stronger. Both sexes receive their own form of dignity and privilege commensurate with their natures. That worked well, but women especially often struggle to accept that anything is off-limits to them (damned Curse of Eve), so now they stew in jealousy of male roles, male achievements, and masculine glory. Now here we are.

“Once PUAs have several plates spinning, their time spent on women is minimal.”

GTFO with this beep-boop pussy-nerd jargon. If you actually believe all these online gurus claiming to have harems of lingerie-model fuckbuddies on call, it might interest you to know I’m actually the Dauphin.

You know what dignified white men aspire to? Committed monogamy with a top-shelf woman. You know who aspires to promiscuity? Homos, nonwhites, and people addicted to jewish propaganda. Aim higher, my friend!

As Carl Jung noted, women are biologically indispensable they have the babies and men are culturally indispensable because they created everything. But if you want to look at it that way, women who are too old to have children are worthless. The same applies to women who refuse to reproduce. So why should they be supported?

>”Many will die, but the most fit will survive to create the new generation.”

But is that really true? My read of history tells me that much of what is wrong with Europe lies in the fact that two generations in a row of their best, brightest, bravest, and strongest men went off to battlefields where they shredded each other, leaving the weak and cowardly to survive and reproduce.

Remember, natural selection pressures are by nature eugenic, but we live in an artificial age, and unnatural selection pressures (wars, social policies, etc.) can be disastrously dysgenic.

Feminism is essentially the rebel army’s plan to end production of all but the most desirable sperm. Nothing serves the enemy more faithfully than the constant repetitive assertion that sperm is cheap. It’s a disinformation campaign of the highest order and all you seem to want to do is support it

Reducing the defense of the realm to zygotic economics is to diminish the human being to a mere rutting animal and his pursuit of divinely inspired personhood to whimsy. Men are heirs to the entirety of human emotional, social, cultural, philosophical and religious development, and their worth is immeasurable.

Every time someone in the manosphere reduces the value of men to the level of sperm he adds to the weight of the burden on a man’s soul. Each iteration sucks him further into the quicksand of futility and takes the fight out of him a little bit more.

WWII vets tell stories of soldiers getting caught in the mud when their units were hopelessly pinned down by enemy fire. Imagine how it feels to take three days to drown in a bog, slowly but surely going insane.

Stop telling us the bog is a bog. We have women for that. Give men something to stand on and reach for, for God’s sake.

Your comment is a reframing diversion. The issue isn’t whether PUAdom is godly or moral, but how much effort the manosphere really puts into women.

But your question is intriguing, so I will reply. Last night, I saw a PUA I know out with a very pretty woman (mid 20s HB8). They left to go make out in the parking lot. I’ve SEEN him do this before with a woman. A COUPLE (TWO!) of pretty women (28 y.o HB8 & 29 y.o, HB7) met me at the same location. The PUA got 1:1 payback for his time. I was even more efficient.

Empirical evidence compels me.

In a world where marriage wasn’t undermined by laws, monogamy would be a reasonable choice, even for the ungodly.

“From a darwinian standpoint, men can risked, but women can not be. This is why we send men to war, to exploration, to business, to dangerous jobs, etc. Many will die, but the most fit will survive to create the new generation.

But this is also where masculine achievement comes from: great risks entail great rewards.”

Joseph Stalin said it better: “To make an omelet, one must break a few eggs.”

Claims that childless men are disposable always make me want to buy another gun because they’re a justification for revoking our very humanity. People used to believe, as Christianity teaches, that all human life has intrinsic worth and must not be expended lightly. Gonna be a fun world when everybody decides everybody else has no automatic right to live.

The sex that has the most reproductive investment is the more valuable, because more is invested. An interesting example of this is the seahorse. Females carry the eggs, but the males carry around the little baby seahorses and take care of them until they are old enough to make their own way. The females are larger, aggressive, and fight each other more than the males do. It is not just a zygotic economy, but a parental investment economy.

If I take your women, you die off. If you send your women to fight me, I will thank you for your stupidity and generosity, and take your women, and I win, you die. If I kill all your men and take your women, I will, you die. If I sneak in and take your women without killing a single man, I win, you die.

Being expendable does not make you worthless. It means that you are a resource to expend, that you have a value that can be spent on whatever your people need. That is your value. Your life, to purchase survival for your people. It is a far better death than to slink away into the shadows and die alone, forgotten, at the end of a long and empty life.

The reason women shouldn’t serve in the military is because they’re hopelessly incompetent at it, plain and simple. Not because a soldier’s wife can easily find enough sperm to stay pregnant during his absences like Bathsheba did.

“Free Northerner”, the reason you gave in the other article is the best one by my understanding, that women’s beauty is unmatched which creates a unique value.

Otherwise, men have a much higher productive capability indeed. I would go so far as to say that the reason that women shouldn’t be put in risky situations is that their need (instinct, even) for conformity due to physical weakness means that they behave too dependently in situations where agency and quick thinking is most needed. Women in risky situations would also have a greater chance of fouling up, not only their own task but also the team’s greater purpose.

Small correction, just in the name of clarity: the woman who can produce a child a year is rare indeed. For most women, the minimum practical expected time between children is two years, as breastfeeding severely inhibits ovulation.

For men the caveat is much weaker, but you’re still significantly more likely to conceive if you have sex once ever two days instead of once a day.